A billionaire mining magnet run adds in the newspapers to tell us ‘what is good for the billionaire is good for the battler’. These so called magnets have become rich beyond their wildest dreams on the back of Australia’s natural resources. Resources owned by Australia to be exploited for the benefit of all Australians, not just a privileged few.
As Wayne Swan has rightly pointed out,these billionaire are now trying to used their wealth and power to formulate public opinion in their favor. In reference to these billionaires Mr Swan said “They get a very good reward for what they do, but this country needs to be concerned about where the fair go is going, when people are spending large amounts of private cash to try and sabotage public policy,”
Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest are trying to disguise their own self-interest as being the national interest. They will spend what every it takes to gain control of public opinion for their own ends.
Abbott stands on the side line bleating rubbish about ‘class war’ as he tries to defend his billionaire mates.
As Wayne Swan said “I'm talking about something new and I think something that is quite insidious.” We should all be alarmed at the thought that these privileged few will use their vast wealth to try and gain political control of Australia for their benefit

from the beginning of colonisation
there has been the landed gentry..

with free prisoner labour/free land/free water
transport laid on..pipelines installed on the public purse
getting huge dams..huge areas of land..wealth for the harvesting

with the rum corpse
to service their advantages..
and jailing or criminalising..their workers
working to pay the rent..

while the abuser gets a tax reduction
on his in-vestment homes..putting[hiding]his[her]..wealth in a family trust

oh so secret
oh so special;

wayne is not attacking the lot of em
just the latest..newvo rich..[he darnt attack the old money]

but i suggest..the poor mug voters
will eat it up..just him and another minestyers comments alone
will add 3 points[wanna bet]..

imagine if he really believed it
wayne could become pm...thats only cause he dont challange the old money

its time wayne
to tripple family trust income tax
how can individuals claim so much personal wealth
in a family trust fund..[tax each individually..on the funds..total income..

the more sharing the colusive trust..advantage
the more pay the full tax bill..i hate trusts..and middle class welfare..and corperate bailouts...and those stealing our common wealth]

getting free pipelines
free ports..
free rail lines
free land./.free tax deductable lunched
free resterants..free entertainment..free subsidised transport

and the govt ear
but what about them other lot
selling public assets...collecting cyber toll
or getting a nice nbn landline past your investment
so cheap indians can run it from india..for one tenth its cost

yep
if govt is paying
its going to a mate

A lot of meat in this subject, glad you raised it. It is a discussion that isn't going to go away any time soon.

>>These so called magnets have become rich beyond their wildest dreams on the back of Australia’s natural resources<<

There's another way of looking at that. Private enterprise has invested enormous sums of money into mining activities, from prospecting through to end-product delivery. What they are seeing is the result of that investment.

>>Resources owned by Australia to be exploited for the benefit of all Australians, not just a privileged few.<<

If the various Australian governments over the past forty-plus years has invested our taxes in the same ventures, this would be a fair statement.

They didn't. It isn't.

What would be a contradiction of all we stand for in our non-communist country, would be to change the rules to the point where the ownership of the end-product of the mining industry suddenly becomes transferred to the State.

>>As Wayne Swan has rightly pointed out,these billionaire are now trying to used their wealth and power to formulate public opinion in their favor... Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest are trying to disguise their own self-interest as being the national interest. They will spend what every it takes to gain control of public opinion for their own ends.<<

That is, I agree, a problem. But it is "our" problem, in that the solution is in our hands: don't submit to bribery.

>>We should all be alarmed at the thought that these privileged few will use their vast wealth to try and gain political control of Australia for their benefit<<

Alarmed, no. Concerned, yes.

Not sufficiently alarmed to overturn every principle of doing business, by a retrospective annexation by the State of private property. But concerned enough to understand that surrendering to their narrow interests by accepting their bribes is bad for the country.

Treasurer Wayne Swan takes aim at 'wildly irresponsible' billionaires:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/class-warfare-wayne-swan-takes-aim-a-wildly-irresponsible-billionaires/story-e6frg12c-1226289405266

Good on him! It is not something that I would have expected, given how close the big business sector is to government, and how much power it wields over them.

Now I just hope that he and the government will vigorously debate this issue, at least as strongly as the barrage of full-page ads and comments in the various media put out by Forrest, Palmer and co.

But Swan is only attacking the ludicrous extreme of the millionaire-magnate / big-mining-company vested- interest regime of pressure on public opinion. He needs to broaden it right out and push for much greater independence of government, not least with a major overhaul of the political donations regime.

I think this would gel very well with the average voter, and could well be the key to putting Labor well ahead of Liberal come the next election.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it triggered a battle between the Libs and Labs to put forward the best set of policies for winding back the influence of big business and greatly improving the independence of government!

I have no problem with billionaires spending whatever they want on affecting public opinion, just with the lies and half-truths they use in going about it. That is what Swan should be highlighting, the fact that the sky will not fall in due to a C-tax and MRRT and billionaires will continue making billions while everyone else gets a fairer deal.

Paul I understand the concerns, but in a way the system is working.

The mining magnates are paying for big Ads and people like Wayne Swan are questioning the integrity publicly as are others in forums such as OLO, Crikey and the mainstream media.

I am not too worried by the Ads as I reckon they are only converting the already converted for the most part. In a democracy you cannot ban political Ads even from the private sector. The unions made use of the media in combatting the awful WorkChoices.

Let's face it, who would buy the billionaire/battler altruism scenario especially after the 'end of the world' hysteria whipped up over the resources tax.

I totally support a mining super tax to more equally share the benefits of this - once only - mining boom.
Mining is a special case because land owners do not, at least in Australia, own rights to the minerals in their land.
That ownership resides with government and thus with the people, you and me.
So, in what universe does it make sense for us to give up our benefit in order to increase the wealth of a billionaire who may not even live in Australia?
As to the misuse of access to media space, just look at the campaign against the original super profits tax.
Ordinary Australians, most of whom did not own mining shares, opposed a tax that would benefit them.
How did that happen? Aussies aren't stupid.
They were lied to in a massive tv ad campaign funded by, now, who was it again?
Oh, right, it was the mining companies.
My latest blog takes a lighthearted look at our mining magnates, if you'll pardon the shameless self promotion.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I am no great lover of mining magnates, in fact I find some of them rather distasteful, however that is no reason to destroy our golden egg producers.

Sure some country towns are not such nice sleepy hollows since the boom, but hundreds of thousands of Ozzies are much richer, & better off, [not necessarily the sane thing], because of it.

Without the foreign exchange earned by mineral exports, we could not have afforded to import much we have today. That computer you are using may still be in Asia not Oz.

We have all benefited from the initiative of these people to some extent. Just imagine the world without them. Our mining industry would be run by government. How many billions do you reckon mining would have lost last year with Julia & Sawney running it. I shudder at the thought.

God just think of it. Every tradesman or miner would have an academic on one shoulder, & a bureaucrat on the other, both telling him what to do. If he ever did anything, it would be wrong.

Don't believe me, then look at Russia. Bankrupt by its central government control, it is now becoming wealthy again as individuals exploit its raw materials. Yes they make billions, but the people are all a little richer.

So do be careful of that envy folks. Perhaps it's better to settle for just a slice of the cake. Grab for the whole thing, & it just may be crushed under foot in the ensuing bun fight.

Thought should not be bought, but it is.
I agree with most, the very rich want to own us all.
But in America, and Abbott thinks we are part of their Republican party, cash is buying the candidate to run against President.
We, if we let it happen, will soon be bought and sold by the very dull very rich.

Only sort-of, Anthonyve

>>Mining is a special case because land owners do not, at least in Australia, own rights to the minerals in their land. That ownership resides with government and thus with the people, you and me.<<

The proper designation is that the minerals belong to the Crown. This was established in the 1850s, and because each State reports directly to the Queen (via their G-G, of course), this meant that each State exercised the rights, individually. Minerals were not mentioned in the Constitution, so they remain in the gift of the State, not Canberra, to this day.

The Crown, of course, does not want to get her hands dirty digging up the goodies, so allows commoners to do this in exchange for a royalty on everything they find. Once the appropriate royalty has been paid, the plebs can go ahead and sell it to whomever they like, and keep the change.

Check it out, the documentation is all there. Western Australia's is probably the most accessible - here's a good place to start:

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/4407.aspx

So it is pointless waving your arms at the miners for stealing your birthright. It was on-sold long ago by your friendly local State Government.

Pericles,
And your point is?
Obviously, the crown doesn't keep the royalties, the government does.
My point precisely. No 'sort of' about it.
Ergo, the government is simply doing its job when it maximises the return it can get for the people's asset via taxation, levies, or, if you prefer, 'royalties'.
And i would further add that billionaires are not remotely a prerequisite for a healthy mining industry, thus, to respond to the thread's title what is good for the billionaire has no bearing whatsoever on what is good for the battler.
For example public companies whose shares are in part owned by our super funds can and do achieve just as much for national mining profits as do companies owned by magnates.
Especially regarding Gina Rhinehardt whose only claim to fame is winning a lucky sperm competition.
Given her beginnings she could hardly have failed to achieve what she has.
The drover's dog could have done as well.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Do come off it Anthonyve.

If it had been Julia or Swanny, who had won that race, they would have lost the lot within months of getting their hands on it.

I don't know how people so naive survive in this world.

Point of order here.Are they magnates,maggots or just attractive magnets? I getting all confused about which one we should all like.

Basically I find myself agreeing with you Pericles

It strikes me that this "Tall Poppy syndrome" is alive and well still. Envy raises its head when someone with a great deal of wealth achieves something, often at considerable risk or hard work

Many wealthy people have built on what others have done before them. Are we to discredit them and take from them what they have ? Like you Pericles I am a little concerned, but while these billionaires continue to create wealth for the country and they continue to pay company tax and personal tax like the rest of us, I am happy to have a proportion of my money invested in their companies through my superannuation. I should imagine the majority of the population feel the same way as most would be indirectly in the same position. Even the Future Fund holds equity and all the public servants rely on that.

I just think that this constant argument is always very one sided and I like to play the devil's advocate.

and of course the charlatans pushing the gw myth continue to get free air time on public funded stations. At least the mining magnates produce something of use unlike the spin doctors from the pseudo science field that continue to deceive many even though anyone with half a brain has woken up to the scam.

use your union credit card to visit brothels and you can be an integral part of the Labour party. Dump your wife and kids and trade in for another model and that's okay. Sleep with everyone else in the party and your in with the crowd. Say something politically incorrect about gays or woman and you will be booted out. That's why Politicians are happy to allow women to be exploited in prostition and put up such a self righteous feminist dogma when it comes to what people say. Not my wife or child they say with a straight face.

I must have misunderstood you, Anthonyve.

>>Pericles, And your point is? Obviously, the crown doesn't keep the royalties, the government does. My point precisely. No 'sort of' about it.<<

You mentioned a "special case".

>>Mining is a special case because land owners do not, at least in Australia, own rights to the minerals in their land. That ownership resides with government and thus with the people, you and me.<<

So, what exactly is the "special case"?

The Government/Crown/State agrees to accept money on behalf of the people, you and me. In what way does that make a difference?

We owned it, we licensed the mining of it to people who were happy to invest, and we the people, you and me, get the royalties on it.

So, back atcha.

Your point is...?

The first port of call in this debate should be at the door of government. The expectation is that the government would exercise its power to achieve the most profitable result for the citizens of Australia; it is the policy settings of the federal and respective state governments which we should debate first.
The settings of the royalty/licence system presently in place certainly appear to be heavily weighted in favour of the mining companies making it abundantly clear that the citizenry and the governments themselves are being hugely short-changed in relation to the wealth which the mining industry generates.
Alternatively the government might have chosen a system of contracting. By calling for tenders from mining companies for the contracts to develop and exploit the resources, government and thereby the people would retain control of the vast wealth generated by the industry and channel it back into the Australian economy.
Instead they took the easy way out and put the royalty/licence model in place which of course allows the wealth created to be channelled for the benefit of a few individuals and more significantly, since there are many multi/national enterprises with mining licences, the wealth they accumulate is not being channelled back into the economy of Australia at all. Sorry, Hasbeen but most of the golden eggs are being laid outside Australia, something in the order of 85% I believe; that leaves a 15% net gain to the Australian economy. I thought Wayne Swans letter in the Monthly was fine but he should back it up with the real figures so Australians can know what the real facts are regarding our Billionaires. Whatever one might believe about the pros and con’s of capitalism I have the gut feeling we are being ripped off. Nothing short of revolution will change the present licensing model but every citizen of Australia should seriously consider supporting Swan’s plan to introduce a super profits tax. A very wise man once said “he who buries his head in the sand also leaves himself open to being violated”
DEN71

Hi Pericles,
I think I misunderstood you too.
It might just be that we're violently agreeing with each other.
Had to happen eventually :)
Have a good one.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hi Hasbeen,
I'm intrigued by the amount of insulting that you do of those who don't agree with you, (which, by the way, probably adds up to a ginormous number).
So, let me just understand your world view here. KInda save us all some time.
Basically, anybody who doesn't agree with you is naive. Have I got that right?
And if so, wouldn't that mean that the free world has an epidemic of naivete?
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hasbeen I like your non de plume but sometimes your comment makes me wonder if you and a few others 'were ever'! [just a joke]. No not you, you fool! Anthony I've just read your blogs; you make some good points with great humour. congratulations to you. I find it very interesting to read everybody's contributions but there is a degree of wooly thinking out there. Perhaps though the mix of ideas will be threaded together into a useful whole given time. Everyone is trying, or is that 'very trying'. Just to avoid confusion I can tell you that I can see hope in the blend of socialist capitalism in which neither destroys the other. We will do well to remember that human nature is at once both social and individual. Here endeth the lesson.
DEN71

Hi Den71,
THanks for visiting my blog.
I agree that, when insults aren't being hurled back and forth, there are many astute observations here.
And the diverse range of views is what keeps bringing me back to OLO.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I can see what you're saying here, Paul. And, in an ideal (though perhaps Marxist/socialist) world, the government would be making the investment and reaping the rewards here.

The problem is that, as Pericles pointed out at the start of this thread, it was left to private enterprise to take the risk and pour money into extracting the minerals from under our feet. The Palmers and Rineharts of this world don't take the risk unless they're pretty sure they get to keep the profits. And the profits aren't much good if they can't buy something - perhaps public opinion - with them. We, the proles, need to be clear that our opinions are not for sale.

Perhaps what Swan should be doing (rather than bagging out our big money, big investors and big employers) is lobbying for a change to the way we extract our mineral resources in the future. Perhaps it's time not to reclaim existing ventures, but to invest public money in the extraction of future mineral resources.

The billionaires have a role to play, too. Rather than buying public opinion with their newspaper ads, they could buy it by giving back to their communities. Not by funding hospital wings (which will inevitably be named after them) but by improving the towns in which they establish their operations, rather than sucking the souls out of them. Rather than driving property prices up so that local kids can never afford to live in their sleepy hometowns, invest in property. Build mining towns. Build infrastructure. Help employees to buy their homes and make mining towns family places rather than FIFO hotbeds. It costs more, but it could:
a) help to decongest bigger cities
b) help to make towns viable even after the minerals have dried up
c) curry favour among the general public
d) divert a small part of the wealth generated by our minerals back to the nation.
It's worked in many other places. It could be worth a shot here.

State rights to minerals is not under attack directly, as they collect royalties but the feds are saying WA, for example, will have its GST share docked if it raises these. This is an indirect path towards dispossessing the mining states and raising the MRRT in the future.

Perhaps WA should insist on a super tax on the tourist industry in far more beautiful places, and another on the finance industry that does so well on the eastern side of the continent. These taxes could be market-linked going up and down with international tourist numbers or the level of foreign investment.

The MRRT is a federal tax, not a royalty, that is linked to mineral market prices . Being the devil's advocate here, why just the mining industry? Is it all about the non-renewable aspect of the resource or just that it's doing so well?

Mention of the Micro soft founders billions given freely often see cynical replies.
But he is not alone in doing just that.
Our Dick Smith, seen by some as tainted for helping greens, gives too.
And while the bloke is anti union I find it hard not to like him.
As many do give, and want nothing but good out comes in return,we should not focus only on our would be buyers of power.

You are forgetting one thing, these billionaires, or their fathers, bought arid land, mostly in places that may not have been the A hole of the world, but if you looked hard, you could have seen it from there.

That's a huge gamble, and one that most folk would not dare risk, especially with the increased awareness of the likes of both 'environmental' and 'cultural heritage' issue over the past decade or two.

Now as for all Australians owning the assetts, what a load of rot.

How can anyone claim to own so ething, when they havnt shared the risk.

However, if you are one of the ones who shared the risk, the shareholders , then by all means, you own a part of it.

Our collective governments have sat back for decades while these people's forefathers have bought this land and it is only now, that the value of the assett has gone mad, that they want it.

In America, if your land has oil, it's yours! But not here.

I say again, if you share the risk, you should share the gains.

Finally, just remember, these assett WERE STOLEN by governments in 1910 and 1923.

So what about some compensation for that theft.

yep funny how starving the peasents[potatoe famin]
drives people to go into the wilderness

where they too live the cream time of the lord

getting govt grants..for everything
well heck govt took back the rights to that under the land
because some elites wanted what was on others lands

where their small holdings get cleared
and then big money comes in...like a god
and consolidates

i guess its just how it goes
thieves feel entitled

if its a product
lets turn it into cash

http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/09/from-road-salt-to-pink-goo-whats-in-the-food/

wonder what they do with the lumps
in that sewerrage...that was going to be made into drinking water
[at a billion dollars per white elephant..[built by mates[payed for by our taxes/increased fees

so we live of the pink anf grey goo

you seem upset about the paying of royalties
that is simply a cost of doing business

govt first bleds its own people dry

lol to gift cash
to special mates projects
Crony capitalism: Green firms burn through taxpayer dollars,
pay huge executive bonuses, then go bankrupt

The Obama Administration's green energy development program, which has leveraged billions of taxpayer dollars into high-risk green energy startups, is rapidly turning out to be one of the biggest financial scams on the American people in recent history.

A new investigative report by ABC News has revealed that many of the now-bankrupt green energy companies that received massive taxpayer-funded loan infusions from the Department of Energy (DOE) awarded huge cash bonuses to their executives shortly before crumbling.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035196_crony_capitalism_green_firms_bankruptcy.html

and when even govt largess seems too big
and it looks for yet more taxes

the big babies whinge poor me
groanups get on with making life better
lets refine the brown poop/goop into money
and freeze dry the lumps...

See, here'ds the thing about the internet.
The first link cited be UOG is owned, managed and edited by a group of shock jock radio hosts.
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with UOG's overall contention, just pointing out that if we're going to support our positions with references to websites, they really ought to be credible ones.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hay Anthy, please explain in detail why you thing the ABC site is more creditable, than any other.

Even if a site is run by people, whom you don't like, because of your prejudices & attitudes, it is definitely no less creditable than any other.

In fact, a site run by people with their own prejudices, paid for by my taxes is definitely less creditable than one paid for by the people who run it.

Perhaps you need to have a good look at your posts. Your arrogance comes through most of them, loud & clear.

Hi Hasbeen,
First, I didn't say the ABC was a more credible site, although I think it is.
Second, a site that makes unsupported assertions, and which is run by people who make their living from sensationalism is probably not the best and most credible source on the web.
Just sayin'
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve, slip over to jennifermarohasy.com & check out just why many of us are getting sick of funding the greenie/labor promotion organisation which the ABC has become.

How anyone, other than a green party member could call them credible is beyond me.